The world has too many lawyers. And too many law students. But one law professor has decided that, numbers be damned, it should be easier for students to go to law school. Professor Christine Hurt of the University of Illinois thus proposes one of the most absurd “solutions” I’ve heard in a very long time: she wants to make the first year of law school free. Professor Hurt reasons that too many students get locked into law school because of heavy debt loads, even after they decide the law is not for them. Free 1L tuition would allow them to run free without committing financial suicide.
Great thinking, Professor. Except, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. So, who’s going to pay for the free tryout years? Second years and third years. And because some students are going to drop out before they get to their second and third years (after all, that’s the point of this bizarre system), tuition will have to be raised for second and third years to account for the “lost” year of tuition for dropouts. Even the Professor admits she’s got a problem:
“I was bouncing this idea around to a colleague who suggested that the second and third years could also be increased over $45,000 to subsidize those who took the option, but I still think the number would be small enough that this might be unnecessary (or require a very small increase).”
So, wait, the tuition increase is not going to be substantial because not many people are going to drop out of law school, even when there’s no financial cost? So why does she feel the need to create this whole ridiculous system in the first place?!
And let’s not forget that this system would effectively punish those who are serious about the law before they make the big life choice of enrolling by creating more competition as a result of increased demand from “fluff” applicants. Why does the professor think its a good thing that some poor kid who truly wants to be a lawyer might get bumped out during the admissions process for a slightly smarter kid with no interest in law who wants to take a cost-free one-year vacation avoiding the real world? I’m sure that’ll create a great pool of students.
If we’re worried about dissatisfied students staying in law school because of the debt, we should be giving more lectures on the meaning of sunk costs. (I know lawyers don’t do well with numbers, economics, and the like, but c’mon.) More financial counseling would help address this problem without the financial calisthenics that Professor Hurt proposes.
Moreover, information on what law school is really like is already out there. There are plenty of websites, books, and other resources that given honest perspectives on the law school experience. Kaplan even hosts “simulated” law school classes now for prospective students. We shouldn’t be coddling those who are too lazy or dumb to take advantage of these resources before they make a significant personal and financial investment in law school.
Lastly, I question whether we should be encouraging students to attend law school at all. If students are truly interested in the law, let them find a way to get there. Creating ludicrous systems like Professor Hurt’s would only strengthen the current system under which many students head to law school because there’s just nothing else they care to do.
-Michael



